NASHVILLE—In advance of tonight’s GOP presidential debate in California, the Tennessee Democratic Party released a new estimate of the number of jobs which would be lost in Tennessee if the Republican Party’s presidential candidates and U.S. Sen. Bob Corker are able to pursue their extreme economic policies.

The analysis conducted by the Democratic National Committee found that just the balanced budget amendment, like the one included in the Tea Party budget plan passed by the U.S. House of Representatives this summer, would result in the loss of 9.5 million American jobs and 184,569 jobs in Tennessee.

The loss of so many jobs would likely sink the economy into a depression the likes of which the country hasn’t experienced since the Great Depression. Sen. Corker and every Republican presidential candidate has come out in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution or supported the Tea Party budget plan which contains one.

TNDP Chair Chip Forrester released this statement:

“9.5 million American jobs lost and 184,569 jobs lost here Tennessee, a second Great Depression, devastation for the middle class, small businesses, students and seniors, an end to Medicare, and a slashed Social Security — that’s the Republican plan for our economy.

“There’s no question we need to get our fiscal house in order and get the economy moving, but the price Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Sen. Bob Corker are willing to pay to appeal to the most extreme and narrow elements of the Tea Party is too high – especially for Tennesseans.

“The Republican approach is like setting dynamite to your home to fix a leaky faucet — and these misguided choices are the result of a Republican Party which has turned over an increasing amount of power to its Tea Party fringe.

“Americans want real solutions to the problems we face and they want a plan to create jobs in the short term and lay a foundation for long-term economic prosperity. What Republicans are proposing falls devastatingly flat on all fronts.”

The new analysis looked at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) August deficit projections for 2012 ( $991 billion deficit with CBO options for Iraq drawdown, extension of all tax provisions and Alternative Minimum Tax indexing and accounting for the so-called “Doc” fix), and using the conservative Romer-Bernstein rule of thumb that 1 percent of GDP equates to 1 million jobs, concluded that if the plan were fully phased in 2012 and nearly a trillion dollars in federal spending was slashed, the balanced budget amendment would cost 9.5 million jobs nationwide.

Because of the balanced budget amendment’s strict requirements for deep cuts, hard spending caps and a two-thirds majority to raise revenue, Congress would be virtually helpless to reverse the negative effects of these Tea Party Republican policies.

It sure looks like Republicans are trying to sabotage the economy for political gain. You might think that sounds like a tin foil hat conspiracy theory until you consider this: Republicans are now opposing measures to boost the economy that they previously have supported. Even TAX CUTS.

Here’s what Sen. Chuck Schumer said Wednesday about Republican opposition to a payroll tax cut to boost hiring:

“It’s pro-business, it’s a tax cut, and many Republicans have been for it in the past. But now all of a sudden they’re coming out against it. … Would Republicans really oppose a tax cut for business that created jobs? This is sort of beyond the pale. So if they’d oppose even something so suited to their tastes ideologically, it shows that they’re just opposing anything that would help create jobs. It almost makes you wonder if they aren’t trying to slow down the economic recovery for political gain.”

Why would Republicans do such a thing? Because they’re more interested in getting re-elected – and getting President Obama out of the White House – than they are in helping the economy get moving again. They’re more interested in their jobs than your jobs. It’s that simple. And we’re calling them out.

With unemployment rising in Tennessee, now is not the time to put party before country. Our lawmakers should stand up for working people and our state’s middle class by supporting common sense tax relief to grow our economy.

The Jackson Sun opinion editor Tom Bohs recently took Republicans to task for their vote to radically change Medicare into a vulture voucher system. The Paul Ryan, budget wonks say, would increase the out-of-pocket cost of health care for seniors by more than $6,500 a year.

Republicans shot themselves in the foot by proposing to end traditional Medicare and replace it with vouchers for private insurance. If they don’t drop this scheme, it will cost them dearly in the 2012 election cycle.

Not only would privatizing Medicare through a system of insurance premium vouchers wildly complicate the purchase of health insurance for senior citizens, it is unnecessary.

Not only would privatizing Medicare through a system of insurance premium vouchers wildly complicate the purchase of health insurance for senior citizens, it is unnecessary. Seniors already have private insurance options under Medicare through Medicare Advantage plans, Medicare supplement plans and Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. The only thing the voucher system would take away is the government option for Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctor services) that seniors know and largely love — talk about biting the hand that votes for you.

Under the voucher plan proposed by Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, seniors would be allotted money they could spend on health insurance purchased through private insurance companies. The advantage, according to Ryan and other Republicans, is that people would be able to choose the health insurance that best suits their needs.

That is the biggest false hope I have ever heard perpetrated on old people. What is the best health insurance policy for anyone? The best policy is the one that pays the bills when you get sick without splitting hairs over whether a particular illness, procedure, service, doctor or medication is excluded in the fine print of the insurance contract.

It is a fallacy that different people have different health insurance needs. What health problem don’t you want coverage for? The idea that some people are in better health than others and don’t need as much health insurance is nonsense. No one can predict life’s illnesses and health mishaps, let alone those of old age. It would be like buying car insurance that only covered you on some days of the week.

The other reason Ryan’s approach to privatizing Medicare to save money surprises me is that it is unnecessary. The system is solvent for many years to come. Shortfalls after that easily can be addressed long before they materialize. Ryan is solving a problem that doesn’t exist, and making seniors and other voters angry in the process. He should focus on problems that are real and on the table right now such as the national debt, high unemployment, mortgage defaults and a host of social, military and international affairs challenges we face.

But the thing I find most disturbing about privatizing Medicare is that it complicates the last bastion of senior citizen comfort. People who are old, sick or near the end of life don’t want to be burdened with complicated insurance decisions. Can Republicans not let old people just finish out their years with peace of mind without a lot of rah-rah, take responsibility, every man for himself flag waving? All that’s fine when you’re young or 40 or 50 and still building your lifestyle and personal security. But when you are 70 or 80 or older, the last thing you need is a bunch of insurance companies trying to get their hands in your pocket.

The final problem with Ryan’s Medicare voucher scheme is that it might not – and I would hazard an educated guess it would not – be sufficient to purchase health insurance that would provide anywhere near the coverage afforded by Medicare. What would people do when their benefits ran out? Ryan doesn’t address that. Again, it would be every man for himself. Of course, there might still be Medicaid available to those brought to penury by uncovered medical expenses. But that only puts the burden on others, to say nothing of the emotional and psychological blow it would inflict on seniors.

Good grief. Medicare works. Leave it alone and find something to tinker with that really needs fixing. [Jackson Sun, 5/28/11]

The Economist: Rep. Paul Ryan’s Plan Shifts The Burden Of Risk Onto Seniors By Only Delivering A Voucher For An Amount Ryan Thinks Ought To Be Enough For Health Care, Not Guaranteeing All Care.[Economist, 4/5/11]

Center for Economic Policy Research: A Person Born In 1957 At Age 65 Will Require An Additional $182,000 In Retirement Savings In Order To Purchase Private Insurance Rather Than Accept Coverage Through Medicare. [Center for Economic and Policy Research, “Letter to Rep. George Miller”]